Author
Topic: We came from where? (Read 27181 times)

gotta go with hopeful on this. even if you completely removed religion and biblical beliefs from the equation, you still could not prove evolution. in fact, the evidence supports multiple creations rather than evolution. i am not sold on that either, but it makes more sense.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

My rejection of the macro-evolution model has nothing to do with the Bible. In fact, some believe that the Bible leaves room for evolution. I reject it because it is false science, and has never been reproduced or observed.

That statement in it's entirety is flase and shows you have not done any real research.

Quote

I rejected evolution long before I ever became a Christian. As I mentioned earlier, genetics has disproven evolution conclusively. It may take while for the rest of "science" to catch up to this. But those at the highest levels already admit it. My own father in-law,the late Dr. Willard Centerwall, was a top genetics scientist and this was his conclusion as well. Evolutionists always make the false claim that evolution is only resisted on religious grounds. But that is another red-herring. The truth is, evolution is held onto on (quasi) religious grounds, and is every bit as much faith-based as creationism. Go back a few pages and look at some of the reasoning. Or perhaps if you can find some proof that macro-evolution has ever been actually observed or reproduced, please submit it for my perusal.

I personally feel that even Darwin would have given up by now. :)

No reputable scientist with any peer reviewed documentation has come out with any research that disputes the fundamentals of evolution.

If creationism had any foundation the Dover case would have not had the blow out it did against creationism. You can disguise creationism any way you want. It doesn't stand up to the science and it doesn't stand up in court.

The bottom line, Brendhan, is that when someone in the government or at a college tells you that a piece of marble is 1 million years old, you believe them and do not question. How is that any different from the fundamentalist Christian who asks his pastor and believes without question?

Because when I ask them to back it up with proof and show me how the came up with their answers they will show me and none of it is based on faith.

Quote

When some says that a diamond takes millions of years to develop, you believe them in spite of the fact that it has never been observed, but only theorized.

When someone says that stalactites take many thousands of years to form you believe that as well, and take it as fact. The truth is that we have stalactites ten feet long that hang from public water pipes that are only 50 years old.

I had a piece of actual rock with a tire track it taken from a lake that was dug out only 35 years ago, people have found 100 year old hammers imbedded in coal that was dated to be over a million years old ( that's an old hammer!)

We are fully willing to look at the evidence,Brendhan, but we are also fully willing to question it and ask the finders "How far was the apeman's head found from the apeman's leg? And wait to hear the answer, which in some cases would "5 miles".

I have just completely dissected all the points you made that you thought had any merit. My biggest issue is that this dribble is trying to infect itself into our school systems. Just because you are not a geologist (nor am I). Does not mean the scientist are correct. But at least I am looking at the research.

The ideas you perpetuate are not only wrong they are dangerous. They elude to the idea that if it isn't clearly spelled out by God it simply cannot be. Not all the answers are in the bible. I am sure sure penicillin was somewhere in the Book of Romans.... oh wait it wasn't.

I don't think I will change your mind. But I don't think it is correct for you to spout off unsubstantiated ideas and conjecture.

The idea behind Creationism (aka Intelligent Design) has been time and time again shown to be filled with falsehoods and a religious agenda. Not only by the scientific community but by the courts.

I said on page four of this thread:

Quote

I will be simple here. This is why children in today's school system turn out the way they do.

It has been shown in this thread that there is a definite threat to the current education system.

Jerrymac, I don't know if the seeds of life on Earth came from Mars. But I know they didn't come Adam and Eve.

Sincerely,Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible

Why do I call my idea a 'Hypothesis'? People use words in many ways, but one of the strengths of science is that it tries to use words in precisely defined ways. Theories are much stronger than Hypotheses. A Hypothesis is a starting point in the scientific method, while a Theory is the result of much research and testing. Once there were also scientific Laws, but now we know that even Newton's Laws are not totally correct. Therefore, newer scientists such as Charles Darwin call their well-tested ideas 'Theories' instead of 'Laws'. My idea is only a Hypothesis, ready for testing, by me and hopefully by many others in the scientific community.

In my house life was created between the flannel sheets.

The answer to the questions disputed here comes to us after death, or for those lucky enough to survive it, that creationism is the final word. Man in his limited world (he exists in only 4 of the many demensions) has too narrow a few to see or dicover the truth. Those who insist upon scientific proof of everything will never have faith because faith is belief in truthes unseen. And Believe me, having seen the "other side" there is a lot living man has not seen.

Logged

Life is a school. What have you learned? :brian: The greatest danger to our society is apathy, vote in every election!

Once again (and for the last time, and then the last word can be yours), You accept the explanations of what these people say. I cannot prove how deeply you investigated their claims or if you have at all. As far as I know all you did was go to a website and copy, paste and say, "See? Here is proof". I personally know people who were evolution professors in universities who have since exposed the problems involved. I tried to get my older sons (who are evolutionist atheists) to watch a seminar given on cd by one of these ex-evolutionists and they said they were not interested. So your claims of open-minded evolutionists must stop at yourself, if that is even true.

Question- Have you studied the prophecies of Daniel2 and then tested the fulfilment against history? Would you be willing to? PLease do not answer here. That is a question for your own heart.

BUt nevertheless, I notice that while you kindly corrected us for discussing religious themes on a thread about the origin of species, you yourself want to talk about the age of rocks, which has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of species. You seem to hold a contempt for the Bible and for Christians. You say that evolution theories are compatible with genetics science. Are you saying that the genetics pioneer and scientist that I personally knew was wrong, and that you know better? Its a big world and there are many explanations for things, Brendhan. Which of the three theories for planet formation that were presented three months apart is the correct one? They all claim to be based on "science" and they all claim to be the truth and teh others wrong- based on facts.. Science, so-called, has more contraditions within itself than the BIble ever thought to have.

Brian wrote,

>>>>The answer to the questions disputed here comes to us after death, or for those lucky enough to survive it, that creationism is the final word. Man in his limited world (he exists in only 4 of the many demensions) has too narrow a few to see or dicover the truth. Those who insist upon scientific proof of everything will never have faith because faith is belief in truthes unseen. And Believe me, having seen the "other side" there is a lot living man has not seen.<<<<

I have seen it too, Brian. There is a world completely unknown to "science", and that they in their arrogance refuse to admit exists. Man is puny and insignificant. We are dust and insects in the greater scope of things. BUt God loves us. The One who controls everything but our minds and hearts loves us puny and insignificant creatures. You see, I know God, he heals broken bodies, broken lives and broken souls. If He used evolution and I am wrong, then so be it. BUt I have investigated the foundations upon which that theory was guilt and it comes to nothing. It cannot be seen, proven, or observed. God, while invisible to the human eye, transcends our lives and manifests Himself to those who want to truly know HIm.

I believe in all truths, scientific or otherwise. It's just that to much of what is pronounced scientific proof is poorly applied science. Nobody who hasn't seen or visited the otherside for themselves will or can believe what is there and how extremely limited out life on this planet, in this plane, truely is. And That's the truth. My definition of an Athiest is a person who has never had the opportunity to die and live to tell about it. Simply because if they die, and live to tell about it, they can no longer be an athiest, ain't no way.

Logged

Life is a school. What have you learned? :brian: The greatest danger to our society is apathy, vote in every election!